(03-02-2017 12:22 PM)Dark Light Wrote: Yeah, you're a dishonest fuckhead. As I've said multiple times, Milo is not "my guy" as much as you want him to be my guy. It would be convenient for you if he were, I guess, and that's good enough for you. And there was a lady here who said the violence was justified early on - she beat around the bush in saying it, but the implication was clear that Milo was equal to Hitler and we violence was justified because we didn't want him to rise to power and start deathcamps. I beleive it was the same delusional lady who thought the US fought in WWII to end hate speech and discrimination. That nutjob. Anyhow, yeah, you might "think" that the military can't tell people how to dress, but I know what the dress codes are as I have to abide them as well. I could recite sections of grooming and uniform standards to you off the top of my head that would clearly violate the religious practices of Muslims, Jews, Sihks, and many other religious groups. It isn't limited to the military either. Sihks are required by religion to carry a Kirpin (sword, or in modern times in the west, a dagger). TSA doesn't give a fuck. OSHA forbids Hasidic Jews from operating lathes with there long curly sideburn pubes out, and all sorts of bullshit. I know you don't like it, but the facts are the facts whether it fits your narrative or not.

Yep, clearly you are an omniscient being who can't possibly be wrong about anything because you have something memorized

You are really fucking stupid. I went out of my way to point out that the Army had the most exceptions to these rules of thumbs and you pull up Army pics to prove me right? You are fucking dumb, boy.

(03-02-2017 12:24 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: I agree that Milo is deliberately a troll and intentionally cruel to audience members, but I disagree that he should not be invited. I think the key would be to have a "counterpoint" speaker follow him, who can meticulously pick apart every point he makes, or else only agree to host him in a debate-type format.

But more importantly, I think it's incumbent upon the host universities to recognize who this man is, what he does (what tactics he employs as part of his propaganda effort), and to counter them.

1) Make sure your security is top-notch, and make sure Milo knows that while he will be given a chance to speak, the extra cost of security is going to come out of his speaking fee because of his history of provocation.

2) Make sure it is immediately apparent that the University will tolerate absolutely no disrespect of a guest speaker, regardless of the content of his speech (call it a lesson in university-level debate/discourse), and will immediately expel any student caught harassing the speaker or engaging in any violence of any sort.

3) Make it clear that the university police will turn over for prosecution any outsider or student who acts in a way that violates any of the rights or guarantees of safety offered to the speaker.

4) Enforce the fuck out of these declarations. Do not allow either side an opportunity to use violence to try to bolster or enforce their message, or to silence the opposition.

Milo is indeed an internet troll come to life. He has found a way to make derision and disrespect seem like intellectualism and "common sense" principled speech, rather than just being an ethnocentric, ignorant, disrespectful asshole. But unless these actually ARE false-flag attacks he is orchestrating to hype his own persecution rhetoric, then it's quite right that these universities cannot block him out without enforcing his narrative in the minds of the morons who follow him... and it's quite right that the idiots who attack him are just bolstering his claims, giving substance to the smoke-and-mirrors game of his rhetoric.

Students in a classroom should be safe to discuss anything, certainly, but that classroom should be also teaching them that some of the things they express in this world have consequences-- that's why you learn if your ideas are supportable and/or defensible, in college, so you don't say that shit at an office Christmas party and get your ass fired. But the university itself should also be sending the message to students that they're not always going to like the messages they hear, but that they need to hear the message first and then learn how to properly refute it.

Milo represents the absolute scum on the bottom of the shoe of human thought... but that makes him valuable as a "teaching moment", at the university level. For that reason, he should never be prohibited from speaking at the university's public-speech forums, as he does.

"Milo represents the absolute scum on the bottom of the shoe of human thought... but that makes him valuable as a "teaching moment", at the university level. For that reason, he should never be prohibited from speaking at the university's public-speech forums, as he does."

I agree that it can be a teachable moment for students to look at people like Milo and his arguments, but that can be done without putting your campus and your students in direct contact with him. Assholes like Milo, are always going to stir controversy. So let them, somewhere else. I am sure that there are plenty of groups out their willing to foot the bill for it. Because keep in mind, the university hosting a shithead like this is effectively being financed by the students and alumni when another speaker might have been invited instead. Even if a private group is helping to pay for it, the university is still footing the bill for some of it because they are the ones putting up the venue and providing the organizational support.

(03-02-2017 12:24 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: I agree that Milo is deliberately a troll and intentionally cruel to audience members, but I disagree that he should not be invited. I think the key would be to have a "counterpoint" speaker follow him, who can meticulously pick apart every point he makes, or else only agree to host him in a debate-type format.

But more importantly, I think it's incumbent upon the host universities to recognize who this man is, what he does (what tactics he employs as part of his propaganda effort), and to counter them.

1) Make sure your security is top-notch, and make sure Milo knows that while he will be given a chance to speak, the extra cost of security is going to come out of his speaking fee because of his history of provocation.

2) Make sure it is immediately apparent that the University will tolerate absolutely no disrespect of a guest speaker, regardless of the content of his speech (call it a lesson in university-level debate/discourse), and will immediately expel any student caught harassing the speaker or engaging in any violence of any sort.

3) Make it clear that the university police will turn over for prosecution any outsider or student who acts in a way that violates any of the rights or guarantees of safety offered to the speaker.

4) Enforce the fuck out of these declarations. Do not allow either side an opportunity to use violence to try to bolster or enforce their message, or to silence the opposition.

Milo is indeed an internet troll come to life. He has found a way to make derision and disrespect seem like intellectualism and "common sense" principled speech, rather than just being an ethnocentric, ignorant, disrespectful asshole. But unless these actually ARE false-flag attacks he is orchestrating to hype his own persecution rhetoric, then it's quite right that these universities cannot block him out without enforcing his narrative in the minds of the morons who follow him... and it's quite right that the idiots who attack him are just bolstering his claims, giving substance to the smoke-and-mirrors game of his rhetoric.

Students in a classroom should be safe to discuss anything, certainly, but that classroom should be also teaching them that some of the things they express in this world have consequences-- that's why you learn if your ideas are supportable and/or defensible, in college, so you don't say that shit at an office Christmas party and get your ass fired. But the university itself should also be sending the message to students that they're not always going to like the messages they hear, but that they need to hear the message first and then learn how to properly refute it.

Milo represents the absolute scum on the bottom of the shoe of human thought... but that makes him valuable as a "teaching moment", at the university level. For that reason, he should never be prohibited from speaking at the university's public-speech forums, as he does.

(03-02-2017 12:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Do you actually read what people write in response to you? I ask this because this post is STILL full of bs straw men of things we have said in response to you. Are your panties in such a wad and so far up your ass that you can't even attempt to objectively read what is written by us?

I'll try and make this real simple and real clear for you with a specific request, show me where I said that this situation (the violent riot) was a conspiracy (Alex Jones style as you put it or "false flag" style or some sort of right-wingers).

You, and others, have claimed the offenders were (variously) right wing, conservative, and even alt-right. I am the one who describes such delusional thinking as a false flag conspiracy theory, because that's exactly what it is.

Go one then, show me where I made these claims. All my posts are still in this thread. I dare you...find it.

(03-02-2017 12:22 PM)Alla Wrote: But as I understand correctly PC on campuses runs wild. So, naturally, some people will rebel against it by offending others. It seems to me that nobody wants to talk to each other and to listen to each other any more. Seems like WAR is the only solution.

It's actually not true that this is "running wild" on campuses. It seems to be a rare exception, blown way out of proportion by people with an agenda to promote.

Though I usually take HuffPo articles with a grain of salt, I like the way the author put it in this piece:

"But we can’t let extremists cloud the real problem here. President Piper is right — we shouldn’t need safe spaces because universities as a whole should feel safe to begin with. But they’re not. And until they are, I applaud every student who continues to fight to make it that way.

Moreover, although individuals like Grayling love to evoke principles of freedom of speech and expression, they fail to address the impact of hate speech and aggression. Although universities cannot protect students from all forms of insults, they can — and should be — responsible for implementing programs and values that foster a positive campus climate.

After all, we can’t talk about ending police brutality in America without talking about what is taught in the classroom. We can’t talk about the failing American justice system without creating culturally competent lawmakers. Proposed initiatives, such as petitions for a more diverse faculty and adequate resources for students from marginalized communities, should be standard at universities.

Lastly, characterizing millennials as whining babies is exactly what naysayers pegged civil rights activists and pacifists during the Vietnam years."

(03-02-2017 12:22 PM)Dark Light Wrote: Yeah, you're a dishonest fuckhead. As I've said multiple times, Milo is not "my guy" as much as you want him to be my guy. It would be convenient for you if he were, I guess, and that's good enough for you. And there was a lady here who said the violence was justified early on - she beat around the bush in saying it, but the implication was clear that Milo was equal to Hitler and we violence was justified because we didn't want him to rise to power and start deathcamps. I beleive it was the same delusional lady who thought the US fought in WWII to end hate speech and discrimination. That nutjob. Anyhow, yeah, you might "think" that the military can't tell people how to dress, but I know what the dress codes are as I have to abide them as well. I could recite sections of grooming and uniform standards to you off the top of my head that would clearly violate the religious practices of Muslims, Jews, Sihks, and many other religious groups. It isn't limited to the military either. Sihks are required by religion to carry a Kirpin (sword, or in modern times in the west, a dagger). TSA doesn't give a fuck. OSHA forbids Hasidic Jews from operating lathes with there long curly sideburn pubes out, and all sorts of bullshit. I know you don't like it, but the facts are the facts whether it fits your narrative or not.

When did I claim Milo was "your guy?" When did I claim I wanted him to be "your guy?"

It should be very easy and simple to show me these things you claim.

"No one has said anyone has the right to physically assault someone else. What has been said is that being physically assaulted does not mean your free speech rights were violated. Your person was violated and other laws are broken, but not your constitutional right to free speech."

(03-02-2017 12:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: When did I claim Milo was "your guy?" When did I claim I wanted him to be "your guy?"

It should be very easy and simple to show me these things you claim.

"No one has said anyone has the right to physically assault someone else. What has been said is that being physically assaulted does not mean your free speech rights were violated. Your person was violated and other laws are broken, but not your constitutional right to free speech."

You are really fucking stupid.

Such an intelligent rebuttal. Well, I am convinced of your brilliance because of your eloquently phrased insult. /sarcasmfont

(03-02-2017 12:27 PM)Dark Light Wrote: You are really fucking stupid. I went out of my way to point out that the Army had the most exceptions to these rules of thumbs and you pull up Army pics to prove me right? You are fucking dumb, boy.

Yep, clearly I must be stupid because you got something wrong. Yep...that makes sense.

You went out of your way to bold your quote of me saying that the Army had the most exceptions to these rules of thumbs.

(03-02-2017 12:31 PM)Dark Light Wrote: "No one has said anyone has the right to physically assault someone else. What has been said is that being physically assaulted does not mean your free speech rights were violated. Your person was violated and other laws are broken, but not your constitutional right to free speech."

You are really fucking stupid.

Such an intelligent rebuttal. Well, I am convinced of your brilliance because of your eloquently phrased insult. /sarcasmfont

I don't have to be eloquent to be right, and truth is more important than verbosity, rhyme, style or any other adjective. I'm still right, your still stupid regardless of how kind I want to be to you. I have no interest in being kind to the likes of you because you were the first to call names, and the only dishonest person in this thread. Others that disagree with me are at least honest. You're a vitriolic snake. This forum is worse for having you as a member.